“Magical” is a word your correspondents have overused in recent days as they’ve struggled, and most often failed, to contain their excitement at Team GB’s golden streak. “It’s going to be a glorious, glorious win. Oh yes! Oh YES!,” screamed your trackside commentator, as Mo Farah crossed the finish line to clinch the 10,000m race. In the studio, your pundits erupted in joy. At the climax of the sprint cycling finals, one of your reporters, so overwrought his voice crackled with emotion, informed viewers that 24-year-old Jason Kenny, overtaking French rival Grégory Baugé to win, was “quite literally on fire.” And when Team GB bestrode the podium to collect Britain’s first-ever gold medal for dressage, and the opening notes of the national anthem sounded, your man on the scene made the following declaration, his voice strangely choked: “I make no apology; we are going to sing.”

So it has gone, and so it will go until Sunday’s final events: every British win celebrated extravagantly; every loss mourned like a family bereavement. My colleagues, over from the United States to cover the Games, are puzzled. “And they call Americans jingoistic and sentimental? U.S. journalists would never openly root for the home team,” said one. I don’t know what to tell them. The impartiality that you bring to domestic politics and international affairs seems almost entirely absent from your Olympics reporting, even if a BBC spokeswoman insists “we pride ourselves on our balance and objectivity.” She adds that “as a national broadcaster, we’re trying to reflect the mood of the nation.” These apparently contradictory aims combine, says the spokes, to produce “measured actuality.” I’d call it “love, actually.” And let’s be clear: you aren’t just reflecting the mood of the nation—you’re amplifying it.

Your coverage is all the more engaging for that. In your handling of live events, news or sports, the BBC usually offers a window on events so transparent and unadorned that we look through you, rather than stopping to admire your work. Your critics will of course disagree vigorously on this point; they accuse you of showing us the world through a filter of soupy liberalism. Examine the BBC’s output and you’ll find material to support that view but much more to sustain your claims of balance and objectivity, even if there’s at least a touch of Enlightenment thinking in the Charter that defines your “public purposes” as including “sustaining citizenship and civil society,” “promoting education and learning,” and “stimulating creativity and cultural excellence.” You’re also tasked in the Charter with “representing the U.K., its nations, regions and communities” and “bringing the U.K. to the world and the world to the U.K.” Well, you’re certainly doing that with bells and whistles during London 2012.

And that’s not only in cheerleading for the U.K but because you are one of the U.K.’s core institutions and one of its greatest cultural exports and exporters. National broadcasters in many countries are modeled on you; some of their top staff gained their experience with you. Your programs and formats are enjoyed globally. Like Scotland Yard, you represent an international gold standard for what you do, and controversies at home rarely filter through to your admirers overseas. They just wish they had a service of such high quality to complain about.

During the Games’ opening ceremony, your cameras cut away from the march of the Olympians to catch the Queen unawares, apparently bored and staring at her nails. Brits excoriated you for that. Imagine if they had been forced to put up with the iniquities visited on NBC‘s viewers—delays, cuts, the unintentional comedy that erupted when its presenters failed to recognize World Wide Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee. And the commercial breaks. All those breaks.

Your performance hasn’t been fault-free. There have been moments of national coitus interruptus, as your editors have withdrawn without warning from scenes of high drama to bestow their affections elsewhere. But you’ve also provided live online coverage for all events after the preliminary stages, with illuminating data and useful commentary. Indeed, when your people aren’t too breathless to speak, they’ve been expert and aimiable guides to the proceedings, and for all their open partiality, are unstinting in their praise for the athletes of competitor nations. (Unless, of course, they suspect someone of unfair tactics directed against a member of Team GB. After cyclist Victoria Pendleton was penalized for straying out of her lane during the sprint, the BBC’s commentator called the decision “very, very unjust,” blaming Pendleton’s fault on her Australian rival Anna Meares. “You have to just elbow your competitor and you win.”)

London 2012 has been the best-ever Olympics for women, the first with female competitors representing all countries but for the world’s smallest republic, Nauru, and women’s contests generating at least as many edge-of-the-seat thrills as the men’s events. This has also been the best-ever Olympics for women at the BBC, with some of your finest women presenters given key roles. Among British women to emerge from the Games as national treasures will be not only sports stars such as Jessica Ennis, Pendleton, Laura Trott and Joanna Rowsell, but also your very own Clare Balding, never less than informed and informative, the televisual personification of your own affectionate nickname, Auntie Beeb. Your departing Director General Mark Thompson has admitted that there are too few Clare Baldings gracing the BBC or, as he put it in this mea culpa for the Daily Mail, “manifestly too few older women broadcasting on the BBC, especially in iconic roles and on iconic topical programmes.” His (male) successor could do worse than to start his tenure by signing up Balding and the rest of the London 2012 team for Rio 2016.

The Games are drawing to a close and it’s tempting to try to get to as many live events as possible. It’s a pleasure and a privilege to have press accreditation that secures ringside seats and a special pink Oyster card that enables free travel to venues. But even as I’ve taken my place in the Olympic Stadium, there’s been a niggling sense that the best views are from my armchair. Dear BBC, you’re even better than the real thing.

The argument may go on and on, across the pond, around the world, but I have been a BBC fan since the "80's when, for us expat workers in the Middle East, the BBC broadcasts were the one TRUE source of daily news...

The clearly jingoistic BBC Olympic Games coverage is only another expression of the arrogant British attitude towards other countries and cultures. The Brits think that they are very special and unique, and actually the best in everything, really the center of the universe. So naturally they are staging "the best Games in history", and winning a gold medal only confirms their "excellence". The BBC biased coverage is only another expression of the typical British arrogance. As an American living in the UK, I have found some of the anti-American remarks on the BBC coverage disgusting, and anti-German comments beyond the pale.

In reality the world is very different from the way the Brits perceive it. The UK is today a relatively backward country economically, technologically, socially and politically. And every day it is falling further behind the more advanced countries such as the US, Germany, Canada, etc. Rooting for their athletes makes the Brits feel better. So let them enjoy their gold medals-they have nothing else to be happy about because deep down they know that they are an insignificant little island pretending to be an important country.

Just a correction, 'Auntie Beeb' is not an affectionate nickname - quite the opposite in fact, it comes from the phrase 'Auntie knows best' and is used by people who believe the BBC portrays a similar arrogance.

The shots and direction from the games are all courtesy of the Olympic Broadcasting Service, not the BBC - the commentators are theirs, but the camera work is nothing to do with them if it's outside a studio or piece-to-camera context.

As a Brit I partly agree. The BBC either underestimates our interest in other athletes or is too scared to test for it. However if you think other national broadcasters are any better then I think your fooling yourself. I lived in China during the beijing games and quite literally didn't manage to catch a single event bar the 100m in which the focus wasn't on a Chinese participant. I've seen similar in Japan and Spain. As for the US, I would say its different. Its not that the US media cheers its own - it simply seems to ignore that others exist! As an example, the LA Times ran a poll on the greatest over Olympian and offered reader s choice of 10 of whom 8 or 9 were American!

Totally agree with Catherine. It's unprofessional, unethical and unjust to focus on your Home Team and completely ignore what's happening, who's injured, disqualified, set the WR/OR, etc, etc. It's not about US or UK or China or any other country, it's all about sport. People want to see history's been made irrespective of the nation, it's all about sportsmen and their performance and achievements, a team if you like, but not a flag, singing anthems or chanting "Team GB" in all appropriate and inappropriate moments.

Dear Catherine: "American Journalists would never openly root for the home team?"

Who are you trying to kid? I've never seen bigger homers than American sports broadcasters. Frankly it's nauseating to see them fawning over every American athlete at these games and most others, and I've watched a lot of sports in my 71 years. So your implied notion of balance in American broadcasting and print journalism at athletic events is simply ludicrous. Let the Brit commentators have their few minutes to remember over the London Games. They haven't had much to cheer about lately.

Quite frankly, except for the odd expert in their own area of sport (the Redgraves of this world) the BBC commentary has been appalling. Presenters shrieking so you cannot hear a word said, over use of the same similies and adverbs, vacuous celebratory comments from those who seem to know nothing about anything, the constant repetition of 'at this moment in time' when a nine year old could tell them there are no other moments and do they mean 'now', the covering of events so that you get the impression that the only athlete taking part in that particular event is British (long jump coverage a case in point) and having interviewed one exhausted athlete after another then to ask them to 'sum up' what they have already said. The best thing about is that the Olympics began all about Big Business interests and the British public has managed to reclaim it back.

When our Sports broadcasting organizations in the colonies grow up, I hope we emulate your outstanding performance with the Olympics. Your understated presentation LOOKS good because it IS good. You do not call attention to YOURSELF with narcissistic popinjays preening for the camera, you let the athletes tell their stories of their agonies and their sacrifices through their actions that lead to their victory while gently allowing the defeated a graceful exit to solitary sorrow. Like an old master's painting, the undercoat of your presentation supports the glory of the games effortlessly and with great depth. Your work looks good.. because it IS good. If Zeus in his Majesty were to decree the games be shown to all mankind, I am confident he would choose BBC to execute his will. Since he is not available, I am glad your Queen in her infinite wisdom came to the same conclusion.

Anyone who ever accuses the BBC of 'Soupy Liberalism' OR claims that they are 'balanced' (outside the games coverage) is deluded. They are the mouth-piece and hand maidens in-chief to the right-wing thugs that run our country. Try watching BBC's 'Question Time' for a prime example on how the quality of the so-called 'debate' is non-existent. Every time anything even remotely controversial is said, the host David Dimbleby will quickly interrupt the perpetrator and move on to another subject. The general news coverage is also a joke.

Firstly, the coverage is actually provided by the Olympic Broadcast Service so cut aways are not the fault of the BBC.

Secondly I think the coverage has been very broadbased and enthusiastic of other countries performances, particularly the coverage of sport that GB is no longer involved in, on the Red Button.

Finally whilst the supportive, excitable commentating has been fantastic most of the interviews have been terrible 'tell me what went wrong and how bad you feel right now for only getting the bronze?' 'You won the gold but there's this negative thing I can bring up right at this moment and this inane question I can ask about the future.' .... really? Is that really what we want to hear? Most of the crassness is in the phrasing of the questions. Generally the media likes to approach things from a negative point of view (rightly or wrongly). I guess they just don't have the vocabularly of their commentator compatriots to sing the praises of unique and glorious human sporting endeavours on a daily basis.

I disagree with most of this. As a non-British person studying in the UK for the summer, I have found this to be the most frustrating Olympics to watch. I respect Team GB and am happy for the amazing things they've accomplished, but it is infuriating to see events cut in the middle, or finals completely ignored in order for the BBC to cut back to their own athletes, replaying the same won events countless times throughout the day, and showing the same interviews over and over when other events are being ignored completely. I've barely been able to see my country, and half the time when I'm watching an event that Great Britain isn't winning, it has been changed. Even today I was watching the women's long jump final, and as soon as the British athlete was knocked out the announcers ADMITTED that they no longer had interest, and failed to show the rest of the final. It's frustrating and disappointing, and I never imagined that watching the Olympics in the host country would the most disappointing TV experience.

I completely agree. American commentators are just completely inept especially NBC. Always talking about something that has NO relevance to the game at hand.

"Oh, his father's uncle's cousin daughter died a few weeks ago. This gymnast has been having a hard time coming to terms with it. I just spoke to his teammate's father who said they will be moving to Arkansas to visit their grandmother..."Don't forget those cheesy documentaries they always show. It's not like there aren't tons of games going on at that moment but we want to cut them out so we can show you crap to fill up the space before the next commercial. Besides, you should be glad that we are taking some time out of airing commercials to show you glimpses of tape delayed games.

I am not sure I completely agree with you. Clare Balding is terrific. But I have seen too many BBC commentators - not Clare - being negative about the appearance of women competitors. They don't require male competitors to be attractive, but they do seem to require that from the women.

Equally, it feels the BBC is too stretched across too many platforms. The coverage on BBC 3 has included some presenters who didn't seem to know anything about the sports they were discussing. Clare is magnificent. Many of the others seem more worried about their hair than their facts.

Obvious troll is obvious. Literally every sentence in your rambling diatribe is so far off the mark that I think everyone should just feel sad for you. When you can back up literally anything you've said with examples rather than bitter vagaries, come back to me

>>The Brits think that they are very special and unique, and actually the best in everything, really the center of the universe.Replace 'Brits' with Yankees and thats what the world thinks about America.

You certainly are not sane. To state the Olympics is not about any country is entirely missing the point. If it were purely about sports and performances, competitors would compete as individuals, not under their own flag and pretty well much every athlete speaks of the pride of representing their country.

As for your comment about ignoring World records and Olympic records would you care to give an example of when one has been ignored?

I can only assume Catherine Mayer claiming American Sports journalists to be impartial was an attempt at humour, otherwise that more or less sums up the credibility of her piece. Perhaps instead of Time writing an article comparing Ashton Eaton to Usain Bolt, perhaps Jessica Ennis would be worthy of such an article? She scored the 5th highest Hepthalon score of all time to Eaton's 8th highest Decathlon. Oh hang on, she's not American....

Agreed! As an American, I'm often embarrassed to watch the Games, because the U.S. media always assumes we'll win the most medals. They idealize U.S. athletes as if trying to market the next Mary Lou Retton. It gets old. While the U.S. has some very fine and deserving athletes, other countries do as well. I'm very pleased to see the Brits embrace their emotions for once.

Couldn't disagree more. The commentary is so technical that for those who are not aware of how the sport works, it makes it easy for them to understand. And of course the coverage is going to be British-focused: they're serving the British public after all, who incidentally, are after that. If one wants to watch e.g. a German swimmer, then they can just tune into one of the twenty-four streams via the red button or online. It really has been top-notch.

Sorry Adam but I'm going to have to disagree with you. Watch 10 minutes of Fox or Sky news and you might actually get some perspective. The BBC is one of the most scrutinised organisations on the planet. It's constantly attacked by the right-wing and, so it seems the left now too. My biggest criticism of it is that it sometimes doesn't have enough balls too to stand up for itself. It will never please everyone but it tries and in my mind does offer a balanced view. It's not perfect by any means but we're incredibly lucky to have it.

NBC does not do it well, but not many people appreciate that it has to try to give viewers a crash course narrative to make them care about Olympic athletes.

This isn't like turning on the TV and seeing Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson, or the Boston Red Sox playing the New York Yankees. The vast majority percent of Olympics viewers have no idea who any of the participants are -- it's basically watching American flags versus not-American flags. For an event like gymnastics, watching five Americans compete without the base knowledge that Girl X owns a pony and Girl Y's mother died last year would get confusing and downright boring for all but hardcore gymnastics fans.

Without these fluff pieces interjected every 10 minutes, watching the Olympics would be like tuning in to an Australian broadcast of a rugby game -- it's hard enough to watch a sport you don't know without the commentators throwing around names and stats that are even more meaningless without context.

Greer, I haven't come across anything along those lines - it would be interesting to know where you'd come across such comments.

I feel that, as mentioned in the article, the refreshing thing about the Olympics coverage has been precisely the avoidance of any superficial body-fixated commentary. Happy (albeit slightly disappointed) to have my opinions realigned, though...

Which definition of the term 'liberal' are you using? Are you in the US or UK? If US, have you heard of the UK Liberal Democrat party? I can assure you that there is nothing either 'Liberal' or 'Democratic' about them. We constantly hear that the media has a liberal bias. This is pure myth that is perpetuated by conservatives. There is no liberal bias in either the UK or US media, Just as there is no credible left. The left was crushed a long, long time ago. Our mainstream media are about fear, distraction and ubiquitous consumption.

Julian Assange hit the nail on the head when he criticized 'British middle-brow squeamishness'. The BBC typify this.

Yes. Our society like most other so-called western democracies, are controlled by neo-liberal greedbags. Guess what?, they control the media too. The BBC will never do anything truly progressive because they are terrified. They look good only because most other TV is soooo bad. They are all about maintaining the status-quo at any cost.

Yes, right-wing. As in, the broadcaster which spent hours and hours covering the Royal Wedding last year, and the broadcaster which spent hours and hours covering the Royal Jubilee this year. The broadcaster who have that well-known left-wing degenerate Jeremy Clarkson as one of their most prominent employees.

Damian is correct though - the BBC does try to be generally impartial, they don't always succeed but show me a genuinely impartial broadcast network and I'll show you a flying pig. We are damn lucky to have the BBC.

Fox amp; Sky are so grossly over the top that you'd have to be denser than lead not to see their bias. The BBC on the other hand, are much more insidious because they are so blindly loved and largely unquestioned by the public. There is no such thing as impartiality, EVER!. Just the pretense of it. Media environments swallow us whole and rather than aide perception, they dull it.

"it has to try to give viewers a crash course narrative to make them care about Olympic athletes."

No. They don't have to try to give us a narrative. All they have to do is give us vital information pertaining to their event and what they are doing at that time. "Trying to make us care" while ignoring the event going on at that time is not good commentary.

NBC has this creepy trend of trying to infuse sob stories in anything they do. Watch some of their competition shows like the Voice and America's Got Talent.

"it's basically watching American flags versus not-American flags".

This right here sums up the American mentality. I'm sure to a lot of yanks, this is how they see the world:

Context of what? Context that the gymnast is currently attending so-so high school and has decided to go the prom with Jake?? Switch to something besides NBC like the BBC and see how "context" is handled.